Howard v. Braun

Appeal
from United States District Court for the District of North
Dakota - Bismarck

Before
LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

KELLY,
Circuit Judge.

LaRon[1] Howard was charged with
murder in North Dakota state court in connection with the
April 2011 death of Abdi Ali Ahmed. On August 23, 2012, a
jury found Howard guilty of murder pursuant to N.D. Cent.
Code § 12.1-16-01(1)(a) and criminal
conspiracy[2] pursuant to N.D. Cent. Code §
12.1-06-04(1), and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed
Howard's convictions in October 2013. State v.
Howard, 838 N.W.2d 416 (N.D. 2013). After Howard's
state petition for postconviction relief was dismissed,
Howard filed for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for
the District of North Dakota. The district
court[3] denied Howard's petition, and we
granted a certificate of appealability on the question of
whether Howard's conspiracy conviction violated his
constitutional due process rights because the evidence was
insufficient to support the conviction. Having jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), we affirm.

I.
Background

On
April 29, 2011, Howard and Ahmed went to a local bar together
before attending a house party with Janelle Cave. Howard,
Ahmed, and Cave were friends. When the three left the party
together in the early morning hours of April 30, 2011, they
returned to the trailer that Howard and Cave shared. Shortly
after arriving at the trailer, either Howard or Cave-or
both-got in an argument with Ahmed. Howard and Ahmed left the
trailer, and the argument escalated. Howard hit Ahmed twice
in the head and Ahmed fell to the ground. Howard testified
that he also kicked Ahmed, and when Ahmed kicked him back,
Howard grabbed him by the legs and dragged him across the
street. Howard said he then told Ahmed: "I'm sorry.
I'm going to fix this. I'm going to get you some
weed." Howard testified that Ahmed mumbled, but did not
articulate any words, and was having trouble getting up on
his own. Cave testified that she was inside during the fight,
and that she came outside to find Ahmed unconscious and
unresponsive. Howard picked up Ahmed and put him on the floor
in the backseat of Cave's car. At this point, Ahmed was
still alive. Though both Cave and Howard denied doing so,
someone retrieved a sword from the trailer and brought it
into the car. It was approximately 5 a.m.

With
Ahmed laying in the back of the car, Cave got into the
driver's seat and Howard into the front passenger's
seat. Howard told Cave to drive to Delmonte Jones' house
to get marijuana. The extent of Ahmed's consciousness at
this point is unclear: Cave testified that Ahmed made no
sounds or movements and that she believed he was unconscious,
but Howard testified that Ahmed raised his fingers to his
mouth in a gesture that Howard interpreted as a request for a
cigarette, and that Howard gave him one. When they arrived at
Jones' house, Cave and Howard went inside together,
leaving Ahmed in the car.

Jones
testified that when they showed up at his house, both Cave
and Howard were wearing gloves. He also said that Howard
brought with him a sword wrapped in a brown blanket and put
it on the kitchen counter. Cave testified that she smoked
marijuana with Jones (Jones said it was only a cigarette),
and that Howard told Jones that there was a body in the car.
Howard also asked Jones if they could put a body in a well on
Jones' property. Jones laughed-he didn't believe
there was a body in the car-and said "just put him in
the field, " or "take it down the street
[somewhere]." Jones also testified that after Cave
smoked a cigarette, she picked up the butt, saying "no
fingerprints, " and then she and Howard left Jones'
house 10 or 20 minutes after arriving. Howard took the sword
with him, still wrapped in the brown blanket.

A short
distance from Jones' house, Cave pulled over to the side
of the road. Cave testified that she pulled over at
Howard's request; Howard testified that Cave did so of
her own volition. Once the car was stopped, Howard pulled
Ahmed-who was still alive-out of the backseat. Cave testified
that she got out of the car and stood near the rear
passenger's side, where she saw Howard use the sword to
stab Ahmed, who appeared to be kneeling. Howard testified
that it was he who stood back and watched as Cave stabbed and
slashed at Ahmed with the sword. Howard and Cave then drove
away, leaving Ahmed behind. Cave testified that she and
Howard drove to a nearby river, where Howard handed her the
sword and she threw it in the water. The two then returned to
the trailer, where they separated for the first time since
initially loading Ahmed into Cave's car; Cave slept in
the bedroom and Howard played video games in the living room
area. Later, in the afternoon of April 30, Howard disposed of
Ahmed's sweatshirt in a stranger's trash can, shaved
his facial hair, and washed the clothing that he wore the
night before.

Ahmed's
body was found by a passerby later that day, and a medical
examiner determined that he died as a result of a blunt head
injury and a stab wound to the abdomen. Although the examiner
was unable to testify with certainty which wound was
inflicted first, he explained that the lack of blood in
Cave's car supported a conclusion that Ahmed was not
stabbed before he was placed in the car. Ahmed also had
defensive wounds on his arms, which the medical examiner
testified supported a finding that Ahmed was alive and
sufficiently conscious to try to defend himself at the time
of the stabbing.

II.
Discussion

On an
appeal from the denial of a habeas petition, we review the
district court's findings of fact for clear error and its
conclusions of law de novo. See Garcia v. Mathes,
474 F.3d 1014, 1017 (8th Cir. 2007). "Constitutionally,
sufficient evidence supports a conviction if, 'after
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt.'" Garrison v. Burt, 637 F.3d 849,
854 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). Because the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) allows the court
to grant habeas relief only where the adjudication of the
claim in state court "resulted in a decision that was
contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of
clearly established Federal law" or "resulted in a
decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of
the facts, " 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), we will reverse
the district court only if the North Dakota Supreme
Court's determination that the evidence was sufficient to
support a conspiracy conviction was "both incorrect
and unreasonable, " Garrison, 637 F.3d
at 855 (quoting Cole v. Roper, 623 F.3d 1183, 1187
(8th Cir. 2010)).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A
person commits the crime of conspiracy in North Dakota when
he "agrees with one or more persons to engage in or
cause conduct which, in fact, constitutes an offense or
offenses, and any one or more of such persons does an overt
act to effect an objective of the conspiracy." N.D.
Cent. Code &sect; 12.1-06-04(1); see State v.
Burgard, 458 N.W.2d 274, 279 (N.D. 1990) ("Section
12.1-06-04, N.D.C.C., requires two elements for commission of
criminal conspiracy: (1) an agreement to engage in conduct
which constitutes an offense, and (2) commission of an overt
act to effect an objective of the conspiracy."). Howard
argues that his conspiracy conviction violates his
constitutional due process rights because the evidence of an
agreement between Howard and Cave to kill Ahmed was
insufficient to support a conviction under &sect;
12.1-06-04(1). An agreement need not be explicit, and
"may be implicit in the fact of collaboration or
existence of other circumstances, " N.D. Cent. Code
&sect; 12.1-06-04(1), including the parties&#39; conduct,
see State v. Cain, 806 N.W.2d 597, 601 (N.D. 2011).
While an agreement "is not established by mere knowledge
of an ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.